|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can You define God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Hi Straggler! I just did a quick search on that term, "ignostic". One definition that I saw was this:
quote: Does that definition agree with you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
in essence you can't believe-in, communicate about or indeed have any coherent thoughts regarding a non-concept. It's like asking: Do you believe in X? Where X is something. Or not. Maybe. So if we said that X, if X exists...we would then have to turn X into something before we could discuss it, right? Thats what I think is the distinction between GOD and God, according to jar. Or maybe he can correct me....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0
|
Straggler writes: If GOD is X why are you giving it the name G-O-D and talking about it in a thread that relates to defining the term "God". A genuine X, a genuine absolute unknown, would have no more association with gods than with hobbits. How about instead of GOD you use the term HOBBIT to refer to the object of your belief? Why not? If it really is as undefined as you seem to be suggesting....? Well..I don't like the term Hobbit, since Hobbit has been somewhat culturally defined. Although I suppose that even by giving it the term X I brought the concept into human conceptualization. My point is that the concept/belief itself is by definition beyond,above, or outside of human conceptualization. In which case you might argue that there is no point discussing it. And yet we are.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
ok, lets discuss the terms so far.
lets see...we haveGOD God god and I added X=GOD and then which ones did you have?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
In that case I agree. On a personal level, I still prefer the terminology, GOD or in my case, Father...but X will do or even "unknown" or unknowable if we are jointly discussing such a concept.
Straggler writes: Why is this unjustifiable? And as faqr as stirring "thinking" into the mix, what else can possibly be stirred into this "mix" to which you refer?
Once you start imbuing unknown things with attributes such as being a supernatural creative conscious intelligence that can only be known after death you are unjustifiably imposing your own anthropomorphic wishful thinking into the mix.
There is absolutely no reason to think any unknowns will possess these attributes and every reason to think you are simply inventing things in order to fulfill your own very human needs. Not a chance? No IFs ? In Rahvins POTM post (nominated by you) in which he said to me quote:He basically says the same thing that you just said. So lets delve further. Wiki writes: Different conclusions as to the existence of God often rest on different criteria for deciding what methods are appropriate for deciding if something is true or not, including whether logic counts as evidence concerning the quality of existencewhether subjective experience counts as evidence for objective reality whether either logic or evidence can rule in or out the supernatural whether an object of the mind is accepted for existence whether a truthbearer can justify. Edited by Phat, : sharpened argument
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0
|
jar writes: If I have heard the argument correctly, Straggler maintains that simply by using the word, GOD, we have already begun to describe an unknowable. We have already began to assign certain characteristics to the concept X. Im thinking that what his argument is is that X remains in question, as if we ourselves were writing the problem. In other words, imagine a math test with one question. (On a blank page) Define X. But defining things is often difficult as the robotics folk have found. Even human have a hard time with many concepts, some simply can't be defined in words at all and so mathematics are used as a better approximation. Perhaps some think that the question, as it relates to the topic, is better stated as Can You Define X? Others would argue that it makes no sense to begin the argument by stating that X, if X exists=X. They may argue a case for the non existence of X. Which is fine and dandy, but then would come the question of why they are participating in this thread. Why participate in a thread where X is discussed when you see no need for X?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Straggler writes: What do you mean by "such a concept"...? Are we talking about a recognizably godly concept? Or are we talking about a concept which is completely devoid of attribute and definition? A concept X. If the latter I see no possible way of having a cogent discussion about an X. OK, first we have to approach each discussion/argument/philosophical exchange with a framework. Logically, the starting post in any topic is the initial framework of a discussion. Thus...Post#1:
quote: So a couple of questions. If concept X is devoid of attribute and definition, (in which case the topic would be Can You Define X) we then have a discussion which can go several ways. If discussing it with a proponent of X, one who wishes X to have a definition, we can prove to them that X has no definition, but even by discussing X, we have given it an attribute...namely a proposal for X to exist or a proposal for x not to exist. Jar claims that since X is an unknown, and a belief, then the biblical concept of I Am that I am means that X could itself be a proposal for its own existence. Thus, IF X exists is a valid premise, no? Additionally, you may see no point to discussing concept X, yet jar or I may in fact see a point to discussing it. Further, since all three of us are in this discussion, as well as others, the idea that it is moot to discuss GOD seems irrelevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
And I would argue that the very fact that humans continually discuss both things that we can define and things we can't we are by virtue of being in the discussion acknowledging the value of either GOD, X, or IF. Do you understand my assertion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
We have three "God" topics in high rotation, chiefly because I like talking about such things. I have to discipline myself, however, and sort the data as to which topic should be addressed by what specific criteria.
jar writes: That's expected and acceptable. I think I understand it but also disagree totally with your assertion. I would argue that in any philosophical discussion, people learn more from disagreement than they do from agreement. Buzsaw always talks about the "sheeple" and yet talks reverently of the Shepherd (or whom he defines as the Shepherd.) You and he always disagree, but I would argue that he has learned more from you having disagreed with him than it would have been had you agreed. Same with me. You and I go way back. And then there is our friend from across the pond...Mr. Straggler! Do you agree with my assertion that GOD (by definitional consensus) is desiring communion with humans or is aware of our minds, wills, and emotions so as to be familiar with us or would you argue that definitional consensus has not yet been reached? I would argue the latter, seeing that if GOD exists then not enough information has been established to even form a full definition, much less a consensus. (apologies to Jesus, whom makes communion a possibility) And no, I cannot define God. The God whom I would want has the following characteristics.
Edited by Phat, : changed subtitle Edited by Phat, : changed thrust of argument/assertion with the understanding that I might be wrong. Edited by Phat, : added
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
straggler writes: Start a thread on it.
So I put it to you that - BLOP is hubbuluteral. What is your response? Straggler writes: The reason we can talk about GOD,BLOP,or X is that one of us put it out there.
Of course the reason we can talk about GOD in a thread that asks 'Can you Define God?" is because this term GOD you use has all sorts of godly connotations and meaning that are implicit regardless of how much you and jar insist otherwise. The problem you have is that as soon as you take away this implicit meaning you literally might as well be talking about BLOP. So does this mean that the Final answer is that NO, we cannot define GOD?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Summary: GOD, and GOD alone, IS supernatural. Because jar says so. Summary: BLOP and BLOP alone IS hubuluteral. Because it too was put forth. I propose X. Any conclusions, objections or definitions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Put what out there? A combination of letters that literally has no conceptual definition or meaning? Something which is literally meaningless. thus, I could say that X, if X exists is meaningful. For you, X="what" or X=something. Thats what you essentially just said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
How do you know BLOP alone IS hubuluteral? Good question. Lets break your sentence down further. First, we will remove the words without definition. Thus we are left with: How do you know alone IS? Edited by Phat, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Its not absurd at all. YOU are the one who proposed it, after all.
How do you know that alone(All One) is? So all we need do is define alone. Then we need to ask how we know that it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar writes: True, since by definition, supernatural is "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe". there is no way we can ever determine these types of things. Does that make the very word theoretical?
I agree that many people believe many things are supernatural, but I also see no way while I am simply a human living in this natural world to actually determine if something really is supernatural. A GOD, if a GOD exists, would really be supernatural. While I agree with this statement, perhaps some people imagine their God to be quite natural, similar to Barbara Eden on I dream of Jeannie
Straggler writes: Do you mean you, jar? Or you, Phat? Or perhaps you think that "you" is inclusive.
Are you stating this as a fact or a belief? jar writes: Can we list anything now known as a tangible fact that is by definition supernatural?
Other things might also really be supernatural. Straggler writes: No. You are entitled to exclusive beliefs. Beliefs by definition cannot be inclusive. I believe that demons, if demons as popularly conceived exist, would be supernatural. Am I wrong? hmmmm. this is getting funny!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024